Transport and the City

An improvement that has made a real difference in Tashkent is the extension of the metro, particularly the above-ground circle line that opened in stages from around 2020. Before that, the metro served mainly the city centre, and residents of outer districts like Sergeli faced long, crowded journeys on minibuses that were often overloaded and unpredictable. The new line connects several of these districts, and it’s used by a broad cross-section of people: students commuting to universities, workers heading to the centre, and families travelling to markets at weekends. The difference has been significant on several levels. Practically, journey times for many people have been cut dramatically; a colleague who lives in the south told me her commute fell from over an hour to about thirty-five minutes. Economically, it has widened access to jobs and education, since people living on the outskirts can now realistically work or study in the centre without enormous time costs. There’s also an equity dimension: the metro is very cheap, so it particularly benefits lower-income residents who can’t afford taxis. That said, I’d add some caveats. The stations on the new line are spaced further apart than in the centre, so the “last mile” — getting from home to the station — is still a problem, and the trains can be packed at peak times. And car use hasn’t fallen as much as hoped, partly because driving remains relatively cheap. So it’s a genuine improvement, but it needs to be part of a broader strategy, including better connections and measures to discourage unnecessary car journeys.

Avvalgi holat → yaxshilanish → foydalanuvchilar → farq (amaliy, iqtisodiy, tenglik) → cheklovlar → kengroq strategiya.